Epson is stopping non-Epson ink sales

[measekite]

All inkjet printers are not created equal, not only by model, or even by
individual units, but even more importantly, by the niche they are
marketing to.

I think they learn that in the 3rd grade.

The lines have blurred over the years, and the inkjet manufacturers
haven't helped because they want to sell their printers as an answer for
all purposes.

Nothing wrong with wanting to stay in business.

Along the way, pricing of consumables have all become very closely priced.

So, the advantages that Epson had from the beginning, which was a
permanent head, which did not alter in quality throughout the life of
the printer, yet keeping the cost of consumables down since the ink
cartridge was just a container. Also, back then, the cartridges were
relatively simple to both refill or reproduce by 3rd party ink
packagers. The image quality surpassed any other brand on the market at
anywhere near the cost.

In contrast, HP cartridges had the head integrated into the cartridge
which made them more costly to make and which were more costly to buy.
The head was designed, in principal as a throw away after one use, they
were made difficult to refill, and the overall print quality was fine
for text and pie charts but not appropriate at all for photographs.

As I stated, the marketplace has since very much blurred. People found
ways to refill the HP cartridges and found they would often last several
refills (although the print quality might be compromised). HP developed
technologies to decrease dot size and increase density and accuracy of
the dot position. In the meantime, Epson reduced the size of their
cartridges while raising the cost, developed ways to make their
cartridges harder to refill, and had a few issues with low humidity
areas and manufacturing tolerances which lead to clogs.

So, I do not challenge your experience between the HP versus Epson
printers, only that your experience may easily be very contrary to that
of others who had different requirements and needs for their printers.

Epson still has the most versatile head design, which allows it to move
inks through it no other printer can do. The head print quality is still
probably the best or tied with one or two others. The head is still the
longest lasting of any manufacturer. However, cost of replacement,
should it fail, is very high. The head is more troublesome to maintain,
especially in drier and dustier environments and bad maintenance habits
will be "punished", but overall print quality, especially with pigment
inks is difficult to surpass.

So, my point is that one usually cannot make accurate blanket judgments

After several long winded paragraphs he has a point

 

[Nicolaas Hawkins]

After several long winded paragraphs he has a point

.... which is more than can be said for you, gatorgate.

 

[TJ]

All inkjet printers are not created equal, not only by model, or even by
individual units, but even more importantly, by the niche they are
marketing to.

The lines have blurred over the years, and the inkjet manufacturers
haven't helped because they want to sell their printers as an answer for
all purposes.

Along the way, pricing of consumables have all become very closely priced.

So, the advantages that Epson had from the beginning, which was a
permanent head, which did not alter in quality throughout the life of
the printer, yet keeping the cost of consumables down since the ink
cartridge was just a container. Also, back then, the cartridges were
relatively simple to both refill or reproduce by 3rd party ink
packagers. The image quality surpassed any other brand on the market at
anywhere near the cost.

In contrast, HP cartridges had the head integrated into the cartridge
which made them more costly to make and which were more costly to buy.
The head was designed, in principal as a throw away after one use, they
were made difficult to refill, and the overall print quality was fine
for text and pie charts but not appropriate at all for photographs.

As I stated, the marketplace has since very much blurred. People found
ways to refill the HP cartridges and found they would often last several
refills (although the print quality might be compromised). HP developed
technologies to decrease dot size and increase density and accuracy of
the dot position. In the meantime, Epson reduced the size of their
cartridges while raising the cost, developed ways to make their
cartridges harder to refill, and had a few issues with low humidity
areas and manufacturing tolerances which lead to clogs.

So, I do not challenge your experience between the HP versus Epson
printers, only that your experience may easily be very contrary to that
of others who had different requirements and needs for their printers.

Epson still has the most versatile head design, which allows it to move
inks through it no other printer can do. The head print quality is still
probably the best or tied with one or two others. The head is still the
longest lasting of any manufacturer. However, cost of replacement,
should it fail, is very high. The head is more troublesome to maintain,
especially in drier and dustier environments and bad maintenance habits
will be "punished", but overall print quality, especially with pigment
inks is difficult to surpass.

So, my point is that one usually cannot make accurate blanket judgments
about any one technology or brand of printer, and one person's
experience tells more about their type of usage and needs than that a
printer type or brand is always better or worse than another.

Art

Great. I agree. My experience won't necessarily be the same as someone
else's - but that doesn't mean theirs CAN'T be the same as mine, either.

The Epsons I tried didn't work well for me. HPs work better, FOR ME, so
I use them instead of Epsons. That's all I said, and some guy came back
and told me I was wrong about my own experience. I know what happened to
me, because I was there. He wasn't. So, I answered him, explaining
myself a bit further. As I pointed out, YMMV.(Your Mileage May Vary) End
of story.

Why can't people understand that?

TJ

 

[john jardine]

Great. I agree. My experience won't necessarily be the same as someone
else's - but that doesn't mean theirs CAN'T be the same as mine, either.

The Epsons I tried didn't work well for me. HPs work better, FOR ME, so
I use them instead of Epsons. That's all I said, and some guy came back
and told me I was wrong about my own experience. I know what happened to
me, because I was there. He wasn't. So, I answered him, explaining
myself a bit further. As I pointed out, YMMV.(Your Mileage May Vary) End
of story.

Why can't people understand that?

TJ

My experience was *exactly* the same as yourself.
I started out with nice Epson dot matrix printers, so naturally moved onto
their first Inkjet types.
Over the years Had 4 of 'em, all brand new. All clogged up if I didn't use
'em for a couple of weeks. The first 'Stylus' models would unclog with a
number of cleaning cycles. The later ones wouldn't (nozzles too fine?).
Epson Ink prices climbed through the roof and they started their chipping
scam, so I called a halt.

 

[Arthur Entlich]

I simply wanted to clarify that while some experiences come close to
universal, others are either very personal or due to a limitation of one
unit, model, or circumstance, and in some cases, the problem can even be
wrong expectations based upon the purpose the printer is marketed for.

Many people reading groups such as this assume a general statement about
a brand from one posting is enough to condemn the product line. So, yes,
YMMV is fair comment.

Art

If you are interested in issues surrounding e-waste,
I invite you to enter the discussion at my blog:

http://e-trashtalk.spaces.live.com/

 

[Arthur Entlich]

I still use a number of older Epson SC printers which all use have their
original heads in them. Yes, unclogging and maintenance can be a bother
at times if they sit unused for long periods without use, but they are,
for the great percentage, DIY repairable from clogs. I like the older
models because you can refill the cartridges or find 3rd party
cartridges quite reasonably.

Art


If you are interested in issues surrounding e-waste,
I invite you to enter the discussion at my blog:

http://e-trashtalk.spaces.live.com/

 

[Arthur Entlich]

Although some very inexpensive inks are fine, and some OEM inks still
cause clogs, typically the 3rd party inks sold for fine art use are less
costly than the OEM (not rock bottom priced) and yet are pretty well
formulated.

Most "name brand" 3rd party inks from companies/distributors who have
been in the business for a while (several years) are pretty trustworthy.


Art


If you are interested in issues surrounding e-waste,
I invite you to enter the discussion at my blog:

http://e-trashtalk.spaces.live.com/

 

[measekite]

While I agree that people should have the choice to put whatever they want
in their printers, and that's it's akin to abuse of dominant market
position, the only 2 times I tried competing inks the results were sub-par:
the colors stank (but I didn't have a color calibrator at the time) and it
clogged my nozzles after a few days of use.

And on top of that you did not even know who made the crap you used
because the supplier would not tell you and that same junk is sold under a
variety of different labels by different vendors. Some vendors even sell
the same crap under multiple labels from their own website so you think
they are different products.

 

[measekite]

Although some very inexpensive inks are fine, and some OEM inks still
cause clogs, typically the 3rd party inks sold for fine art use are less
costly than the OEM (not rock bottom priced) and yet are pretty well
formulated.

Most "name brand" 3rd party inks from companies/distributors who have
been in the business for a while (several years) are pretty trustworthy.

There are almost no branded inks that are not OEM that are sold. One
exception is Pantone. I hear they are very good and are also very
expensive.